Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a former FA that I'd like to at least get back up to GA. Feedback before GA nomination would be very helpful.

Thanks, XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well done taking on the considerable task of improving this article. I just now took a very quick pass, mainly spotchecking for prose/style and referencing:

• Prose/style-wise, I tweaked a few things, and based on that would suggest that a decent copyeditor should give it the once-over.
• There are many unreferenced statements and paragraphs that need to be addressed before GAN, let alone FAC. A good rule of thumb is to ensure every paragraph ends with a citation (meaning the entire paragraph is sourced to that reference -- if more sources are involved, then several citations may need to be sprinkled throughout the paragraph, as well as at the end).

Those are just what stood out on a brief look, if I can return to offer more detailed comments, I will, but you should have something to go on with for a bit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian. I'll do some more work and reach you afterwards. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite US presidents...!

• I was surprised not to see a bit more (possibly in footnotes) as to how different historians have interpreted Roosevelt in differing ways. He's a controversial figure, and views do differ, which doesn't really come through in the current text.

• I'm sure he sparked controversy, but am not able to find that many historians who speak of him negatively (although I personally ensured that the text in this article itself is neutral), only other politicians. Will search, though.

• If you've got access, have a look at "King Ted, the human dynamo", the review of Morris's book by Ernest R. May in the Times Literary Supplement (including its commentary on Pringle's biography) and Francisco E. Gonzaley's reply, along with May's collective review "Hero of a strenuous age". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd echo Ian's points about referencing - there are a lot of gaps at the moment.

• Removed lots of uncited content

• The referencing needs to be made consistent - have a look at the reference list, and you'll see that there a whole range of different styles being used.

• I'll work on that

• Check that the references have page numbers - some which need them don't have them yet.

• Will work on that

• For web pages, ensure that all the relevant information is given (publisher, date of publication etc.) whenever possible.

• Will do

• Watch out for the stubby, one or two sentence paragraphs - they don't make for easy reading, and there are quite a few in the article at the moment.

• Cleaned those out

• Worth checking that all the sources are reliable and high quality - one or two look a bit questionable.

• Which ones?

• Examples (excluding dead links)
• Is Americanchronicle.com a high quality source for historical analysis?

• Apparently not as it is a blog. Will remove as soon as I can find it within the article.

• "Amberger, J Christoph, Secret History of the Sword Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts " - probably good for ancient martial arts, but is it a high quality source for Teddy's life?

• I'll check that ref, but will say this: calling him "Teddy" is essentially dishonoring him as he very openly hated being called that. Please point out where this ref is as I can't seem to locate it.

• melissagenealogy.stormpages.com? (which throws up malware warning messages on my system so some caution might be applied. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why a genealogy site would give such warnings, but I'll look for something which should be less problematic. At the time, it was the only source I could find for some bits of ancestry.

• Check for deadlinks (I've found at least one).

• Shouldn't be a problem

• I'd consider doing a pruning of the external links. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any specific ones you recommend removing? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• http://americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=25 - doesn't seem to be adding much
• http://www.americanwriters.org/writers/roosevelt.asp ditto
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html - ditto, shorter and less detailed than this article
• http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000429 - a stub
• Also worth checking the primary sources linked here aren't duplicates of the primary sources linked above in the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed all four. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Theodore Roosevelt/archive1 may have useful feedback for you. Reviewers at GAN and FAC will often look at previous article reviews to see if progress is being made.

• Thank you

• "businessman/philanthropist": See WP:SLASH.

•  Done

• "market - after": En-dash instead of hyphen (throughout). See WP:DASH.
• "and soon found a diversion to satisfy his gregarious nature - it came in the form of political discussions - which he encountered at Morton Hall": tighter and better would be: and, to satisfy his gregarious nature, soon found a diversion: political discussions at Morton Hall - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "demonstrated Roosevelt as a scholar": demonstrated that Roosevelt was a scholar, or marked Roosevelt as a scholar
• "has ever seen": missing period
• I got down to Theodore_Roosevelt#First marriage and widowhood.
• Generally, the writing is quite good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]